"All the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and . . . the State should be abolished." —Benjamin Tucker

"You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." —James Madison

"Fat chance." —Sheldon Richman

Available Now! (click cover)

America's Counter-Revolution

The Constitution Revisited

From the back cover:

This book challenges the assumption that the Constitution was a landmark in the struggle for liberty. Instead, Sheldon Richman argues, it was the product of a counter-revolution, a setback for the radicalism represented by America’s break with the British empire. Drawing on careful, credible historical scholarship and contemporary political analysis, Richman suggests that this counter-revolution was the work of conservatives who sought a nation of “power, consequence, and grandeur.” America’s Counter-Revolution makes a persuasive case that the Constitution was a victory not for liberty but for the agendas and interests of a militaristic, aristocratic, privilege-seeking ruling class.

But how do you know it was a synonym for "between"? It's hardly idiomatic to speak of commerce among the states in the sense you suggest. And states by and large don't trade among or between themselves. I think we accept these things too readily on flimsy grounds because it accords with a desire to limit government. But that doesn't make it so. I'm channeling William Crosskey (Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States) here.

I don't know if the grammar rules have changed since the 18th century, but "among" is the proper usage when there are three or more entities. Since there were more than three states, it is more correct to say "among" the states rather than "between" the states.

Though honestly, I doubt grammar is among the actual reasons for its interpretation.

There is a line of thinking, not to be casually dismissed, that says the Constitution was not meant to create so limited a government as we have told ourselves. The story of the 10th Amendment is highly instructive. Look up Article II of the Articles of Confederation and compare to the 10th Amendment. Then realize that the demigods at Philadelphia and the first Congress rejected Article II.

Again, drawing on Crosskey, read the clause this way: "...to regulate commerce ... among (the people of) the several states." (State governments don't trade with one another; neither do territories.) Is that what they meant? Isn't that more likely than the conventional reading?

But how do you know it was a synonym for "between"?It seems the most natural interpretation to me. And because English is not my native language, I looked it up. This is what Merriam-Webster comes up with:

Main Entry:among Pronunciation:\ə-ˈməŋ\ Variant(s):also amongst \-ˈməŋ(k)st\ Function:preposition Etymology:among from Middle English, from Old English on gemonge, from on + gemonge, dative of gemong crowd, from ge- (associative prefix) + -mong (akin to Old English mengan to mix); amongst from Middle English amonges, from among + -es -s — more at co-, mingleDate:before 12th century1: in or through the midst of : surrounded by [hidden among the trees]2: in company or association with [living among artists]3: by or through the aggregate of [discontent among the poor]4: in the number or class of [wittiest among poets] [among other things she was president of her college class]5: in shares to each of [divided among the heirs]6 a: through the reciprocal acts of [quarrel among themselves] b: through the joint action of [made a fortune among themselves]usage see between

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/among

6a seems to me the most plausible meaning.

Another reason for interpreting it this way, one that a came up with after writing the post above, is that if the text was meant to include intrastate commerce also, 'all commerce inside the USA' would have been sufficient to cover both the 'commerce among the states' and the 'commerce with Indian Tribes'.

Leon Kassab,

"among" is the proper usage when there are three or more entities.Merriam-Webster disagrees:

There is a persistent but unfounded notion that between can be used only of two items and that among must be used for more than two.(...)

But states do not and did not engage in reciprocal acts of commerce, at least not to any great extent, Martin. And it would be unidiomatic to say "commerce among the several states" when you mean "between/among inhabitants of different states."

Re between and among: While it's okay (if stilted) to say, "The commerce between Tom, Dick, and Harry has been very lucrative," one would never say, "The commerce among you and me has been a success."

In other words, "between" may be used with more than two things, but "among" cannot be used idiomatically with only two things. English-speakers today don't talk like that, and they didn't do so in the eighteenth century either. So "commerce among the several states" does not sound like mere interstate transactions. It sounds more like a general condition: commerce among the people of the state.

But states do not and did not engage in reciprocal acts of commerce, at least not to any great extentDoesn't the same objection apply to definition 3? I mean, if you interpret 'among' according to definition 3, I would interpret the text - taken literally - as refering to states engaging in commerce.

But we can't interpret it to refer to states', in the corporate sense, engaging in commerce because that wouldn't have been an issue. Why would they have meant that? The only interpretation that does not involve a stretch is that it was a power to regulate commerce, period. The "interstate" idea was imposed later. This doesn't mean that the framers wanted detailed regulation or were central planners. But they did believe that this prerogative belonged to the national government, as opposed to the states.

But we can't interpret it to refer to states', in the corporate sense, engaging in commerce because that wouldn't have been an issue. Why would they have meant that?Don't get me wrong, I don't think that's what they meant, I think it's a metaphor. I think a state engaging in commerce is a metaphor for people of that state engaging in commerce with other people outside that state, wether you use definition 3 or definition 6.

Let me put it another way: 'commerce between Texas and Arizona', usually means 'people from Texas engaging in commerce with people from Arizona'. Likewise IMO 'commerce between/among Texas, Arizona and California' means 'people from Texas engaging in commerce with people from Arizona and California, and people from Arizona engaging in commerce with people from California', in short: interstate commerce involving Texas, Arizona and California. Likewise I think 'commerce among the states' means interstate commerce involving all states (of the USA).

Martin, it could mean that, although the use of "among" for two parties is unidiomatic. However, it also could mean, without stretching the language, all commerce within the United States. That's my point. We can't tell those who interpret it that way that they are wrong.

But I think we can go further. It strikes me that the interstate interpretation is an imposition, whereas the other reading is not. The framers were capable of saying "interstate" or of specifically excluding intrastate commerce.

It sounds more like a general condition: commerce among the people of the states.It almost had me convinced, but I have a problem with other applications. E.g. 'swine flu among the states'. Obviously states in the corporate sense cannot contract swine flu, but still I have a hard time seeing it as 'swine flu among the people of the states'. To me it seems this phrase can only refer to actual states (in the corporate sense) suffering from swine flu, and thus as absurd.

(Maybe this shows a lack of understanding of the English language on my part, I don't know.)

"Rivalry among the several states" means something, though you'd want to know what the rivalry was over. The state governments could be contending for something, say, increased federal money. But that doesn't carry over to "commerce among the several states," given that states do not engage in commerce in the U.S.

I agree. But it could also mean rivalry at the level of people in the states, I think. (Like when you would say 'rivalry among neighbourhoods'.) In that case it would mean that Texans rival Californians, but it would not mean Texans rival other Texans. And that does carry over to 'commerce among the states'.

We are going in circles now. I think my position is clear above. Unless some new point arises, I'll end by saying that if we were judging the phrase without knowing it came from the Constitution and without knowing U.S. legal history, I doubt anyone would give it an exclusively interstate reading. There is nothing compelling about that interpretation. So far this has been an analysis of the wording alone. It is worth noting in this connection, that the major framers favored consolidated power. They lamented the lack of a uniform national commercial policy under the Confederation. Moreover, Madison wanted Congress to be able to veto state laws. See also the separate post about the 10th Amendment vs. Article II of the Articles of Confederation.

The Center for a Stateless Society

Recognize

I am a Palestinian.

HT: Roderick Long

Anticopyright

Unless otherwise noted, to the extent possible under law, Sheldon Richman has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to all original content on the Free Association blog, through the CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. This work is published from: United States.

Markets Not Capitalism

What is left-libertarianism?

End the Siege of Gaza!

Handala by Naji Al Ali

“Logic and ethics are fundamentally the same, they are no more than duty to oneself.”